A blast from the past for the shills to have something new to spin/obfuscate/deny:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/something-odd-happening-bitcoins-largest-mining-pool/
We can keep this up all day/night too ;-)
Topic: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to. - page 9. (Read 19997 times)
More anti-core/blockstream bullshit 
You shills crack me up
You shills crack me up
if your only rebuttle is to call someone a shill. may i suggest you just make a bot that justs pastes the word "shill" into your posts
or.
take off your defender hat, think logically, have a cup of coffee allow tim for your thought to gather and think of a suitable reply that has some content/substance that can actually refute some stuff.
otherwise your wasting your own time even replying just to shout "shill"
iamnotback is also the Nashian topic de-railer called traincarwreck. amongst many other names he uses
FTFY 
You shills crack me up
i perfer to remain an amartue shill so i can compete in the olympics
Give it a rest because obviously you being paid by 
to attack anyone for reasons.
to attack anyone for reasons.Nobody pays me dude. I am sincere. And you're still acting like an idiot.
I looked at your post history, if you're not paid to shill why the hell have you been posting non-stop since the asicboost scandal with your anti-core/blockstream propaganda?
Give me a break dude
iamnotback is also anti BU
if he is a paid troll, he is paid to introduce some serious amount of confusion on both sides
to the end goal of making sure bitcoin make no progress and LTC can take over
im laughing
hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..
software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...
and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.
gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.
calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell
if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords
hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..
software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...
and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.
gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.
calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell
if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords
More anti-core/blockstream bullshit
You shills crack me up
Give it a rest because obviously you being paid by to attack anyone for reasons.
to attack anyone for reasons.Nobody pays me dude. I am sincere. And you're still acting like an idiot.
I looked at your post history, if you're not paid to shill why the hell have you been posting non-stop since the asicboost scandal with your anti-core/blockstream propaganda?
Give me a break dude
This is good news.
The Bitcoin network has ass cancer and its name is Jihan Wu. He has been holding back our development for years and we did't even know it.
At least now the community will know the scaling debate was never about blocksize.
The Bitcoin network has ass cancer and its name is Jihan Wu. He has been holding back our development for years and we did't even know it.
At least now the community will know the scaling debate was never about blocksize.
Now after more than 16m bitcoins already mined changing POW is not an answer what do you care if someone could mine cheaper, aren't they proving that they indeed did the work required to mine blocks? I mean the process of calculating trillions of hashes per second was provided to the network or did they bypass it as well?
When you ask someone 15*3 is equal to what? what do you care if they used a calculator or did the math in their head? important thing is that they gave you the right answer.
Can't others reverse engineer that asicboost so everyone else can use as well?
When you ask someone 15*3 is equal to what? what do you care if they used a calculator or did the math in their head? important thing is that they gave you the right answer.
Can't others reverse engineer that asicboost so everyone else can use as well?
im laughing
hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..
software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...
and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.
gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.
calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell
if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords
hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..
software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...
and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.
gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.
calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell
if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords
Quote from: Nullc aka GMax
::sigh::
So they admit to having it in their hardware, expected-- this is impossible to deny, and people on Reddit were already uncovering it for themselves. They insist they have a right to use it. The admit to using it on testnet. They deny using it on mainnet "for the good of Bitcoin"-- but where was the "good of bitcoin" when they insisted that they would keep making empty blocks because the protocol allows it?
I expected the denial, the unfortunate thing about covert boosting is that its very difficult to prove its actual except by what it blocks. The proposal I made was specifically constructed with it in mind. If they aren't using the covert boost then they should vigorously support the proposal because it would prevent others from using it and gaining an advantage over them with it (while disrupting protocol improvements).
What I didn't expect was the sheer level of adhominen and personal attack, and the attacks against the Bitcoin project. It makes it hard to respond to, because obviously I reject and refute those points-- but they're also a distraction from points that actually matter: like how they've completely mischaracterized the proposal.
So they admit to having it in their hardware, expected-- this is impossible to deny, and people on Reddit were already uncovering it for themselves. They insist they have a right to use it. The admit to using it on testnet. They deny using it on mainnet "for the good of Bitcoin"-- but where was the "good of bitcoin" when they insisted that they would keep making empty blocks because the protocol allows it?
I expected the denial, the unfortunate thing about covert boosting is that its very difficult to prove its actual except by what it blocks. The proposal I made was specifically constructed with it in mind. If they aren't using the covert boost then they should vigorously support the proposal because it would prevent others from using it and gaining an advantage over them with it (while disrupting protocol improvements).
What I didn't expect was the sheer level of adhominen and personal attack, and the attacks against the Bitcoin project. It makes it hard to respond to, because obviously I reject and refute those points-- but they're also a distraction from points that actually matter: like how they've completely mischaracterized the proposal.
BU thinks the idea that these boost miners can't upgrade is largely overstated
Quote
Even with the transaction-reodering ASICBOOST trick (which we don't have any proof they are doing), they could still upgrade to a new transaction format like FlexTrans or BUIP037. Or even Extension blocks.
The thing that theoretically screws it up is sticking the WTXID Merkle root into the coinbase transaction.
The thing that theoretically screws it up is sticking the WTXID Merkle root into the coinbase transaction.
Give it a rest because obviously you being paid by to attack anyone for reasons.
to attack anyone for reasons.Nobody pays me dude. I am sincere. And you're still acting like an idiot.
Presuming I am correct that Bitmain knows that Blockstream will never accept a 2MB+SegWit proposal, then you can then re-analyze their statement knowing full well that he knows there will never be big blocks.
Furthermore Bitmain is challenging the community to make AsicBoost patent licensing accessible to everyone. And to enable AsicBoost in the most optimum way. But Bitmain already stated that larger blocks make AsicBoost less efficient.
And remember some "hacker" (which is actually Bitmain but nobody can prove it) can release the covert upgrade so all Bitmain's [existing customers who own] miners on the planet could increase their efficiency and side-step the patent (and also they would be against large blocks).
So Bitmain is total BS about wanting larger blocks. Bitmain is trying to destroy Blockstream by never allowing them to get any protocol changes at all. That is why they proposed the 2MB+SegWit at HongKong. And that is why @Gmaxwell is wanting to block the covert AsicBoost.
But Bitmain has checkmated Blockstream. Think it out. I am too sleepy to explain all the detailed reasoning.
Furthermore Bitmain is challenging the community to make AsicBoost patent licensing accessible to everyone. And to enable AsicBoost in the most optimum way. But Bitmain already stated that larger blocks make AsicBoost less efficient.
And remember some "hacker" (which is actually Bitmain but nobody can prove it) can release the covert upgrade so all Bitmain's [existing customers who own] miners on the planet could increase their efficiency and side-step the patent (and also they would be against large blocks).
So Bitmain is total BS about wanting larger blocks. Bitmain is trying to destroy Blockstream by never allowing them to get any protocol changes at all. That is why they proposed the 2MB+SegWit at HongKong. And that is why @Gmaxwell is wanting to block the covert AsicBoost.
But Bitmain has checkmated Blockstream. Think it out. I am too sleepy to explain all the detailed reasoning.
Bitcoin is decentralised and should not be dictated by anyone to their agenda/advantage. It it driven by consensus and not miners.
Lol. Your two sentences are mutual conflicting.
Bitcoin is consensus.
You're incompetent and should STFU. Now you are conflating the consensus of transaction ordering, with modifications to the protocol.
Bitcoin's protocol game theory is political clusterfuck, by design to protect the immutability of the protocol.
Seriously... try not to make assumption or tell me to STFU. You seem to be posting and attacking everyone all day. Give it a rest because obviously you being paid by
to attack anyone for reasons. 
What a lameassmove 2 do if dis is true. 
So he has been selling cheated miners which give you more hashpower if you don't signal for Segwit, is that it? And everyones's being activating BU because segwit is giving them -%haspower? And that's why BU support were rising over time...
He needs some serious punishment if this shit is true. I mean, JAIL like punishment btw. What a fuckng clown.
He needs some serious punishment if this shit is true. I mean, JAIL like punishment btw. What a fuckng clown.
no no no
altho he has chips which can do asic boost he doesn't turn that feature on.
he does not ship miners with it turned on
he supported segwit +2mB but core fucked him over.
he continues to support future upgrades including some which will hinder boosting ( like bigger blocks )
and hes deeply concerned about how core has managed to brainwash you
First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
It could be a matter of opinion. Or maybe you have perceived one actors tactical methods used in pursuit of their strategic goals.
If you had the chance to get your most significant work approved (SegWit) and only had to accept a 2MB block, why wouldn't you do it?
It makes absolutely no sense. Can you think of any other rational explanation than the one I offered?
Even if Blockstream had an opinion that they don't like 2MB blocks, they wouldn't block their own work over such a small quibble. There has to be a more significant reason they refuse 2MB blocks with SegWit. I offered my reason. Is there any possible other reason that makes any sense?
(note I am so very sleepy, so we may have to continue this after I sleep)
So he has been selling cheated miners which give you more hashpower if you don't signal for Segwit, is that it? And everyones's being activating BU because segwit is giving them -%haspower? And that's why BU support were rising over time...
He needs some serious punishment if this shit is true. I mean, JAIL like punishment btw. What a fuckng clown.
He needs some serious punishment if this shit is true. I mean, JAIL like punishment btw. What a fuckng clown.
First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.
Am I correct so far?
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.
Am I correct so far?
Quote from: disgruntled-core-insider
They just have a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns.
go PM that guy, he should have a much better idea.
First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
It could be a matter of opinion. Or maybe you have perceived one actors tactical methods used in pursuit of their strategic goals.
Jump to: